A lof of Android phones also have hardware issue. The difference is that it's not amplified ten fold like iPhone was.
And it's got nothing to do with SJ mouth. It got everything to do with Apple success.

The bigger the success ... the bigger the bull's eye. It just comes with the territory.
I think that's because is most people find it easier to attack success than it is to achieve it.... sad, but true. \

Apple, bigger than Google, √ ..... bigger than Microsoft, √ The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.

They're both touch based. And that's about where the similarity ends. Desktop and widgets are huge differentiators. As is the notification system (drop down blind vs. pop-ups). I actually prefer the Android UI (particularly the stock UI on the Nexus One) to iOS.

The way you use the phones is fundamentally different. If you're an Android user you put on widgets for thinks like Facebook, twitter, sports scores, news, calendar, weather and even toggle switches for connectivity options. You glance down at those widgets to get info. You don't open individual apps. Notifications stay in the blind, until you action them. They don't pop-up and interrupt you.

You also more hard buttons, which again, changes the way you use the phone. Hard back button is something that takes a lot of getting used to (having it and then not having it on iOS). Hard search key is very hand feature. Short press, right into search. Long press into search via voice-to-text.

...which brings up the next feature. voice to text and voice command integration. It's amazing on Android. And an area Apple could really catch up on.

So with all that, how is one a copy of the other? If anything I'd argue Android is more Palm OS like, than anything.

And KDE isn't a knockoff of Windows because of a few different details (for one, the start button is a giant K and not a Windows flag!). Deny it all you want. It's not like the whole design of Android phones changed after the iPhone came along.

At the same time, shouldn't we at least acknowledge that this topic is significant from a platform viability perspective? Granted, the android platform is not as compatible/monolithic as the iOS platform, but this is still a meaningful topic.

Exactly what I was going to say! :-) If you compare device to device...phone to phone then the iPhone will outsell all phones..one to one.
Apple does a great job of promoting the iPhone as well. the have a great marketing department! Othetr than the Droid...android phones really aren't promoted as well as the iPhone is.....

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

Market share doesn't mean much, it's all about who makes the most profit. Apple still makes the most profit out of all and they allow themselves to find and hire very talented people.

Ad far as I know, Apple and Android fans shouldn't fight each other. They should fight Symbian and RIM instead, because those are the horses everyone needs to kick to the last place.

Totally agree. Android 2.2+ is a good OS for phones. I am thrilled to see multiple good OSes for phones that are competing and pushing aside the mediocre to bad phones, in particular Windows Mobile. Although iOS started much of this revolution, it is great to see that there are two good platforms taking off and MS isn't a part of it due to their incompetence, so they won't be able to get a monopoly and stifle the competition.

The reason it is so beneficial to have multiple good platforms is that it will prevent stagnation in the market, which is great for consumers.

Good for Android, but note that the percentage gain in Android market share corresponds almost 1-to-1 with the loss of Symbian and Windows share. RiM also lost share. Since iOS's share still rose, I'll begin to worry only when Android (or some future system) actually eats away at Apple's business. Since the iPhone by phone standards is already a fairly mature product in comparison to Android, I don't see this as a sea change for Apple. If I were Nokia, though, it'd be a whole different story ... and not really looking like one with a happy ending.

Astute observation and I agree. Android and iOS aren't so much in competition with each other as they are in competition with Symbian, Blackberry OS and Windows Mobile. But the rate at which Android is rising, being reminiscent of the iPhone, it's inevitable that people will compare them, and inevitable that they will find themselves in competition once the rest get relegated to the back benches.

I guess for me I have been in technology since I was 19, I am now going to be 43 so having worked in the business for a few decades and always having to carry about cell phones, beepers and laptops the excitement tends to wear off..lol.

Extreme, please remember .... one doesn't stop playing with toys because they grow old ..... they grow old because they stop playing with toys. (I only wish I was 43 again ... hell, I've got socks older than you ..hehe)

Apple, bigger than Google, √ ..... bigger than Microsoft, √ The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.

That's my other rant. Why is it "Android to iPhone" instead of "Android to iOS". iOS devices sold were over 17 million for the last quarter (counting iPod Touches and iPads) which puts them way over Android. Don't compare a whole OS to another OS's single variant.

In fact all iOSes put together (Touch, iPads and iPhones) are slightly under 18 million per quarter which is less than just the Android phone sales in the last quarter. At the rate at which the Android phones are being sold per day is increasing, and adding Android Tablets to the mix in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of next year and all the Android non phone, non tablet devices (Sony's new gaming platform, in-car devices etc.) that number is going to only explode.

Funny juxtaposition with the earlier story that tells how half the Apple stores are Out Of Stock iPhonewise.

There's a difference between shipments and sales, perhaps?

The second quarter ended in June. iPhone 4 launched on June 24th. In other words, the iPhone 4 was only on sale for 7 out of the 91 days covered in the second quarter. Apple was selling the year old iPhone 3GS for most of the quarter. There will be a massive spike in iPhone sales in the third quarter.

Android will become the "budget" phone for those who can't get or afford an iPhone.

Is that why high-end Androids which are selling well cost as much or more than the iPhone?

The iPhone will be a premium device but not in the way you envision it. The main price differentiator for the iPhone will come not through the phone but through the apps. Free navigation on Android. Nice, but expensive TomTom app on the iPhone. Free wifi hotspot functionality on Android. Some better implemented app with the same functionality on the App store.

The funny thing about this is that I'm sure that Motorola, HTC, and the other manufacturers of phones don't care one bit about this. Motorola, for example, is more interested in the number of phones Motorola sells! In fact, they might even prefer not to be lumped together under one banner, as that makes them look more like a faceless commodity brand.
The only company that this is a victory for is Google. It's like how Microsoft dominating the PC market was a victory for Microsoft but not so much the companies who made the PCs (how are the victorious PC manufacturers such as Dell, Acer, Compaq, etc. doing compared to poor little underdog Apple in the computer business these days?).

I beg to differ. The PC makers were doing quite well in the late 90s. It's just that we are now reaching the end of the PC era and transitioning to the mobile era. And the ones who can't make the transition will suffer for it.

Apple in a sense is the first PC maker to make that transition. Dell and Acer are now starting down that path. HP bought Palm. So you can see where this is going.

And KDE isn't a knockoff of Windows because of a few different details (for one, the start button is a giant K and not a Windows flag!). Deny it all you want. It's not like the whole design of Android phones changed after the iPhone came along.

So did the whole concept of desktop and widgets come along before or after the iPhone?

Except what you said hasn't happened yet. Android besting the sales of a year old iPhone 3GS is nothing to write home about, and it certainly doesn't mean the iPhone has failed.

A three year old could have come up with your argument, it's nothing to write home about. Who would have thought that devices built by multpile manufacturers, and available through more carriers, but using the same OS could have more total sales volume than a device built by one manufacturer???

In fact all iOSes put together (Touch, iPads and iPhones) are slightly under 18 million per quarter which is less than just the Android phone sales in the last quarter. At the rate at which the Android phones are being sold per day is increasing, and adding Android Tablets to the mix in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of next year and all the Android non phone, non tablet devices (Sony's new gaming platform, in-car devices etc.) that number is going to only explode.

Correct me if I am wrong but I had read somewhere that all combined Apple had something like 300-400 000 activations per day. I don't think Android has surpassed all of iOS yet. Just the iPhone.

That Sony PSP Android is going to be interesting. I am curious to see how well that does. Kind of an oddball to have a closed proprietary platform (Sony PSP) running on a wider open platform. It'll be interesting to see if that puts a dent in iPod Touch sales at all.

Hardware isn't everything. First, most of their phones aren't that spectacular in the hardware department. They use the age old method of "X.X Gigahertz Processor!" and push other things that distract the buyer from the facts like cheap touchscreen that's not very responsive. not a iPod device, app store sucks, skinned interfaces lack consistency and slow the phone down...

Go to a T-Mobile store and take the Samsung Vibrant for a ride. That's with 2.1 and some flaws that will get fixed with a firmware update next month. One of the reasons why Android didn't seem to take off for the first year was because the hardware was so woefully behind the OS. It was only since the original Droid on Verizon since November of last year that the hardware has caught up with the software. The Samsung Galaxy S (on all 6 carriers in the US) and 100 carriers worldwide is possibly the first Android device that is ahead of the OS. There will be features added in Gingerbread (Android ver 3 later this year) that will make this impressive device truly rock. As it stands now, it's already significantly better than iPhone 4 in almost every respect.

Extreme, you make some good points but you are overlooking one big item ..... carriers. You cannot make a valid comparison of one company, one carrier against the total sum of all the other companies on all of the other carriers .... it just doesn't mean anything. Even the most impassioned "fanbois" (and that might well be me) can't deny that, at some point, the sum of everyone else is going to be larger than any number Apple can achieve on it's own. So what .... it just isn't a meaningful stat.

But there is something else that no one can deny either. Apple has never set out to "dominate" the marketplace. Their philosophy has always been to make "insanely great" products that change the marketplace for the better and no one, I repeat, no one has done a better job at that than Apple.

Just ask yourself what the cellphone industry would be putting out today if not for the iPhone .... what the music player industry would be putting out today if not for the iPod ..... what the music industry retail marketplace would be like if not for iTunes .... what the small form factor consumption device would look like without the iPad. Would anyone else have created the App marketplace that exists today? ... I think not.

Apple may not ever be the "leader" in sales ..... but it will always be the leader in creating the most "insanely great" products out there. The proof of that is the fact that Apple is the most copied company in the tech industry ... and that tells me everything I need to know to validate my choice to back Apple.

Some clear, level headed points, but fail to mention that Apple didn't necessarily start the change to the marketplace, just made people more aware of it. Android and a capacitive touch based phones existed before the iPhones conception. LG was the first to dip their toe in this area; developing their touch based phone at the end of 2004. Apple wasn't the first App Market as GetJar existed well before Apple came into the game. I remember using GetJar for my flip phones to find free and paid apps. Apple wasn't the first to integrate an app store into their phones either. Almost all the carriers beat them to the punch, Verizon being one of the few carriers forcing you to use their app store or no apps at all. Apple was the first to merge GetJar's openness to developers and Verizon's death grip approval process into one, so kudos there because that worked out greater than anyone expected (not sarcasm).

The music industry is now heading from rampant piracy to rampant low margin digital downloads. While Apple has been instrumental into getting people to pay for music, they've accidentally killed the "big" music industry. The upside is they've allowed for the "small" music industry to have a fighting chance against the big marketing budgets the bigger distributors take advantage of. So this one is tough call. Apple didn't create a single download application for all your music, they created the single download application for all your legal music.

The iPod wasn't a first either, nor was it a first player widely accepted into the mass market. Rio takes that claim. But there is no doubt that Apple became king when they paired the iPod with iTunes. That was a match made in heaven. The next innovative thing Apple accomplished was turning their iPods into fashion accessories. People were/are buying iPods in various colors not because they can get their favorite color, but because they can use the iPod to complement what they were wearing. Ingenious on Apple's part.

I wouldn't call the current Apple an "inventor" of anything except for the ability to market their products so well, that they suddenly become the inventors of pre-existing technology. In marketing, we wouldn't say Apple was an inventor, we would say Apple is an early adopter; leveraging little known technology for a strategic edge. Nothing wrong with that, because NO ONE does it as beautifully as Apple, and NO ONE can deny that.

When Apple was an inventor (Apple ][, Lisa, Newton, Mac) they didn't make money and no one really cared about them. Hell, even Jobs will admit Apple was desperate when they hired him back. When Apple became an innovator, the world bowed before their might.

The funny thing about this is that I'm sure that Motorola, HTC, and the other manufacturers of phones don't care one bit about this. Motorola, for example, is more interested in the number of phones Motorola sells! In fact, they might even prefer not to be lumped together under one banner, as that makes them look more like a faceless commodity brand.

Moto went from a loss making entity to profit. Ditto for Sony Ericson. HTC had bumper profits. Samsung has a huge hit on their hands with the Galaxy S. The Android hardware manufacturers seem to be doing just fine.

Is that why high-end Androids which are selling well cost as much or more than the iPhone?

Okay, you have a point.

But, I still think comparing Android (an OS) to the iPhone (hardware + OS) isn't a fair or good comparison. What I meant by "budget" is that Android can be installed on phones by different makers, some of which will be high-end like the iPhone, some of which will no doubt be more cheaply made to appeal to the masses. This is comparable to Windows which runs on any compatible computer, and Macs/OSX, which is a closed, proprietary system. Some people like the open messiness of Windows and all the configuration required to get exactly what you want. Others prefer elegant simplicity of Apple computers and OS.

Go to a T-Mobile store and take the Samsung Vibrant for a ride. That's with 2.1 and some flaws that will get fixed with a firmware update next month. One of the reasons why Android didn't seem to take off for the first year was because the hardware was so woefully behind the OS. It was only since the original Droid on Verizon since November of last year that the hardware has caught up with the software. The Samsung Galaxy S (on all 6 carriers in the US) and 100 carriers worldwide is possibly the first Android device that is ahead of the OS. There will be features added in Gingerbread (Android ver 3 later this year) that will make this impressive device truly rock. As it stands now, it's already significantly better than iPhone 4 in almost every respect.

I own this phone and I can tell you, Samsung messed this one up. While it's true the devices hardware is ahead of its time (especially the GPU), the changes they made to Android have killed the apps that access the hardware features directly.

Not all PC manufacturers. Computer companies have come and gone over the past 20 years. There are a lot who were successful at one point that aren't here anymore. Well before phones became apart of the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetz

I beg to differ. The PC makers were doing quite well in the late 90s. It's just that we are now reaching the end of the PC era and transitioning to the mobile era. And the ones who can't make the transition will suffer for it.

Go to a T-Mobile store and take the Samsung Vibrant for a ride. That's with 2.1 and some flaws that will get fixed with a firmware update next month. One of the reasons why Android didn't seem to take off for the first year was because the hardware was so woefully behind the OS. It was only since the original Droid on Verizon since November of last year that the hardware has caught up with the software. The Samsung Galaxy S (on all 6 carriers in the US) and 100 carriers worldwide is possibly the first Android device that is ahead of the OS. There will be features added in Gingerbread (Android ver 3 later this year) that will make this impressive device truly rock. As it stands now, it's already significantly better than iPhone 4 in almost every respect.

You still miss the point. It's not that the Galaxy sports a Super AMOLED display, or whatever. Google's app store sucks, the quality of the apps is substandard due to Android users not wanting to actually purchase apps, the phone still isn't an iPod - which is the best mp3 type device ever produced, and therefore it's not compatible with iTunes - the richest digital media outlet there is... It's the whole experience that's missing from the Android line of phones.

Then, Motorola shoves it's MotoBlur skinning on you, HTC has its Sense UI, Samsung has its own UI (TouchWiz?)... They are inconsistent. The experience when moving from a Motorola Android phone to a Samsung is quite different. Every one of those UI skins slows down the phones.

As it sits, Android phones continue to be a "me too" device, that lacks the entire ecosystem behind the product like the iPhone currently has. It also lacks the public perception and desire to own the product the way the iPhone does. The public holds its breath on new iPhone releases. There's barely a headline for a new Android phone release. There's a reason for that: The public wants the iPhone. They merely accept the Android copy cat.

They are maybe OK phones/OS but they certainly don't have the Apple 'Eco-System' which, for me and my daughter the integration of the iPhone/MacBooks, iTunes, App Store, etc., is what it's all about....

Isn't that precisely what a larger market share allows? A bigger eco-system. Once you add tablets, car systems, TVs etc, it's going to be even bigger.

Isn't that precisely an ecosystem, which is set to be much larger than iOS ecosystem if things keep going the way they are going at the moment and adding the new device types? Kind of like the PC wars all over again?

Yes it is relevant. What do you think is more relevant to Motorola? The number of units the Droid X sells or the number of total units all Android phones combined sells?

Would Motorola prefer the Droid X outsell the iPhone, or would Motorola prefer all Android sales combined outsell the iPhone?

Down to the individual companies, I'm sure they would love to have one of their products sell on par with the iPhone. But like we've been saying, in the grand scheme (i.e. big picture), a single phone not outselling the iPhone isn't a deathblow to the company nor the Android platform. Performance like that would really be icing on the cake.

Lets run with the Motorola example you picked. After the RAZR phenomenon, Motorola almost all but disappeared on the consumer phone area. After releasing the Droid on Verizon, they've exploded back on the scene. They followed the Droid with the X and now the Droid 2, both of which are wildly popular and sold out pretty much everywhere. And there's rumors of a tablet in the future.

Has the sales for these phones topped the iPhone? Definitely not. But Motorola's cell phone division has been saved from death and now enjoys much boosted profits. They're earning more than enough to keep on developing new devices and those I will happily look forward to.

I beg to differ. The PC makers were doing quite well in the late 90s. It's just that we are now reaching the end of the PC era and transitioning to the mobile era. And the ones who can't make the transition will suffer for it.

Apple in a sense is the first PC maker to make that transition. Dell and Acer are now starting down that path. HP bought Palm. So you can see where this is going.

Nope. You will always use PC's to hold data and manipulate that data. The mobile market is good, but it has limited use. The iPhone can't do spreadsheets very well, or draw a vector based drawing, render 3D scenes, or even surf very well. What it does is provide a good enough experience on the go.

PC's will never die. The fact is that most Windows PC makers are suffering because they've long been in a race to the bottom. As they all have competed to have cheaper and cheaper goods, they've made their quality cheaper and cheaper and therefore commoditized. There's little profit in them, and the quality is garbage: crappy TN based screens, plain unattractive cases, garbage keyboards and mice... There was a time when it was common to get a quality (then Trinitron) monitor, a good high-end Microsoft keyboard and mouse, etc. with your computer. Those days are gone. Let's not get into the India based low-grade customer service you now get.

The difference between Apple and them is that Apple takes the high road. You get quality, excellent design, and a complete experience from beginning to end, and great US based customer service. But, this comes at a higher price. Apple offers unique products that they develop in-house from concept to execution that can't be had anywhere else. They make money by doing it.

It's like, sure you can own a Nissan 370Z and hot rod it to make it run fast, handle well, etc., but if you had the money, you'd rather have a Ferrari. Apple is that Ferrari - well thought out and executed from beginning to end - not just a bunch of parts.

Exactly. I really don't buy into the pissing contest per se. I'm considering an iPad to replace an old laptop. Looking at the landscape on the tablet side, there's nothing comparable on Android, just crap like the Archos. So I'd go iPad.

On the same token, I don't get people who think that somebody chooses Android because they can't afford an iPhone. That's a load of bull. To start with, if you can afford a cellphone plan with data, I highly doubt you'll find $200 for a phone on contract that steep. Next, why do people find it so hard to believe that some of us actually want features like mifi or navigation which the iPhone doesn't have? Or that we might actually Android's UI (desktop, widgets, notification blind)?

I'd concede that the average person is less likely to know enough about each OS to be able to differentiate between them and pick one at this stage of the game. However, now that Android is growing in popularity, you'll find that more and more people are going to find that there's less and less of a real world difference between an iPhone and an Android phone and more and more concern over features.

To that end, Apple should really do something about its cloud services, because this stuff is becoming the differentiatior. What's the key attraction to Android? Google's services. And that's what Apple doesn't seem to get. You can have the nicest UI and hardware, but it's utterly useless if it's not tightly integrated with the services I want to use. IMHO a good start would be making MobileMe free for iOS users to counter GMail, Picasa, etc. That would add some premium value. And then, they should be developing features like cloud2device that Google has with Firefox/Chrome and Android. It's little stuff like this where Apple is starting to fall behind and once people find out about them, will tilt some users towards Android. Why hasn't Apple done this already when they've had a mobile OS and a browser combination well before Google?

Generally speaking though, I really think it's a very personal choice, that fanboys will never understand. I get it, when I watch my brother on his Blackberry. He's a social nut. And so for him, a solid keyboard and messenger service (BBM) will a phone optimized for browsing anyday. He'll never get an iPhone or an Android, because there's no way he'd give up BBM. Conversely, for me, my choice is feature driven. I'd consider an iPhone if they added the AWS band (T-Mobile band in the US), had some sort of free navigation service and added universal voice-to-text functionality. Otherwise, I am pretty happy with my N1, and don't really feel anything missing. Most people I know with Androids feel the same (the exceptions being the ones using old phones stuck on 1.5/1.6). The again, Android came late to Canada and everyone is pretty much running around with late gen Androids that are feature packed. Anyway, people should not under-estimate how attractive features like voice to text and navigation are to the average user, especially once you get used to them. Apple's going to have match these to stay competitive.

I own this phone and I can tell you, Samsung messed this one up. While it's true the devices hardware is ahead of its time (especially the GPU), the changes they made to Android have killed the apps that access the hardware features directly.

Not sure that I follow what apps were killed? Are you referring to the GPS problem? I know a lot of people like a stock Android UI. But I think HTC Sense is excellent. I was also quite surprised at how much I liked TouchWiz after reading reviews of it on previous Samsung phones. I toggle between it and Launcher Pro and like features of both. But it does prevent users from getting the latest version quickly. And this is one area in which Apple has done an excellent job. The ability for iDevices to upgrade to the latest OS version getting the carrier out of the equation is something only Apple could do. Android certainly has a user device fragmentation. Of course I root the phone and install custom ROMs. But it's not something most users are going to do and Google needs to find a way to fix this. The fragmentation for developer argument is utter rubbish. I have had absolutely no difficulty in making my app run on multiple versions (1.5+) and iOS has just as much of fragmentation problem for developers as Android does - which is that experienced developers wouldn't think twice about it.